MikeMikeJuliet

And to think people might actually have watched these seriously... oh boy the old educationals are hilarious.

I completely understand where you are coming from, and I don't expect anyone to be able to correctly and accurately model Electronic Warfare aspects into any sim out there. Yet, as I've said a couple of times, most end users don't have a clue if the ECM they are seeing on their radar is real or cleverly faked. The emphasis here being on 'clever'. Self projection jammers to my knowledge rarely if ever use noise jamming. Still DCS shows all jamming as noise regardless. I've come to understand Mirage simulates deceptive ECM to some extebt. What I'm getting at here, is that turning on ECM in DCS is too predictable and easy to identify. We should not expect complex ECM and ECCM systems from the game, but rather a simple suite of possible displays on the receiving end that look like real jamming and not the noise we have now. Possibly adjust burnthrough distances between each jammer and each radar with respect to approximate transmit power and there we go. Again, EW being the black box that it is, I'm not looking for realism (it actually cannot be reached as you said, because of the ever changing arms race can't be simulated reasonably in a static Simulator). I'm looking for ECM to not look stupid and counterproductive. If we want, just add CA-controlled noise jamming aircraft that we have now, and ta-da we can create simple but effective and *authentic enough* jamming corridors without the need to increase calculations exponentially. I hope I made sense. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

You do realize that the Normandy was just released to Alpha Early Access? ED will tweak its performance a lot in the coming weeks and months. It isn't supoosed to run perfectly yet, hence Early Access.

Be it ground- or airborne jammer, those would add a new tactical dimension to the game. Even if they would be just AI or CA-controlled.

Indeed. Or the Ryssian Electronic Warfare aircraft using cargo aircraft hulls. Those can be used for massive background noise jamming and/or for crating chaff corridors to blind radars. I would like to see some of those in the game.

Good insight to the systems from a slightly different perspective. The important thing to note there is that the self defence ECM jammers are not made to jam the enemies systems, but to buy time and achieve an acceptable miss distance. For denying the enemy his capability to use his radar or comms you need a full blown jammer aircraft or a ground station.

Seeing things in the skies can be much trickier than one would imagine.

I did some diving to the old end of the wishlist subforum and I though I'd pull this back to light. I remember there might have been one or two threads that had the same idea. Anyway. An optional AI-if-no-client would do a lot in multiplayer missions that lack players. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

That was actually a very good video on the subject. And one can now only imagine what technical leaps have been taken to create the modern ECM and ECCM systems. Just with that video alone DCS countermeasures could be made much more interesting.

On the OP... an interesting question to ask, and I don't think there is an easy answer. Plus, no-one would be allowed to give the complex one eve if they did know the answer. In short, I don't think it would make any difference by having multiple different jammers on a fighter or an attacker. They point in the same directions (thus jamming same targets) and a singular jammer is well capable of dealing with a threat radar. On the emerging topic. Jamming in DCS is modelled in the most simple way you can model it without it just preventing locking. You can model a much more realistic jamming system by spending half an hour on google! And I sure hope ED would do that. Since we are not going to be given info on jammers other than on a principle level, no virtual pilot is going to be able to tell if it is modeled like the real thing, or just working "along the lines of" the real thing. And because we can't tell the difference, I would rather ED made a google-jammer than hold onto the dumb, oversimplified system we are presented currently. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

All this considered, why would ED need any public alphas constantly after 2.5? Before Nevada became a thing all we had was a stable and a beta branch. The alpha was made strictly because ED can't have multiple maps on 1.2/1.5 versions of the game. So, after 2.5 is out and all three current maps are in there, why would ED need to have an alpha for a new map? Why not throw it into the beta branch, since the new engine can handle multiple maps? I mean this is exactly what happens with the upcoming alpha releasd of Normandy. It does not get it's own version, instead it is added to the 2.x branch. It is alpha only because 1.5 still exists. With that argument, I do think ED will only release stable and beta builds for the public after 2.5 is out. And all THAT said... why are we arguing over this? It is not our call to make. And different software houses and game developers do things differently. Just because someone worked on a program doesn't mean they know how every developer handles their projects.

I suspect ED will continue having a singular stable release and the occasional beta branch for the exact reason you described. That said, the stable release is the one intended for the majority of users. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

It has been stated to be released in Q3 this year. So around 4 months remaining.

Some aircraft are also left out of DCS for monetary reasons. The owner of the IP needs to give permission to use said IP to the level of detail that they approve (meaning FC3 level licensing is probably easier to get than a full fidelity license), but the license holder also may want a cut from the sales of the module. If the cut is large enough a developer might just end the project there because they believe it will not be economically viable. So its not only about the license, but also how much a license costs to use. This is mostly ignored when people talk about wanting a module on DCS.

Unless something is in the works behind the scenes, then no. SRS is a standalone mod, not a module. And to be honest I prefer it this way. Just imagine how broken this would be if it was incorporated into DCS :D

If used with lotatc, the Global Hawk could provide for an additional sensor with a long loiter time. Other than that I do agree the drones might not be good gameplay elements.

I would find such an upgrade a good addition. In my opinion, the FC3 systems are too simplified and thus actually make using them more difficult particularly with navigation.

I don't get what is so funny of having this thread... That said, I don't think this is a grand issue either. Still, ED should change the parachute speeds to values that reflect reality, if the speed doesn't match currently. Most likely it is a singular value in the sim. End of story. No fuss about it. It's not a parachuting sim, but why should we have an unrealistic speed on the chute, if the correct one is just as easy/difficult to put in the game?

Same here

While true, also consider that the L39 is a trainer and the rest of the aircraft are very old apart from the Tu-22. And that said, the Tupolev is still in mod-status, so we are unaware at this time if it has been licensed or not, since non-profit mods are legal. So it could still be that anything relatively new will be kept out of our reach, or the cost for aquiring the licenses is so high that creating a module would never break even. Just some thoughts. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Indeed! And if the quality of the Normandy map is anything to go by, the effect will be more like having a totally new map instead of a update. Goodbye old Caucasus, I willl not be missing you :D

This could be adjusted to allow you to filter units within certain time-limits. For example, set the start year to 1939 and the end year to 1946 and you should see only WW2 units... set start year to 1970 and end to 1990 and you should only have units and vehicles available that were used in said years. So on and so forth. This would be in my eyes most handy to mission makers.

Rain on the canopy is already in the works for 2.5 version, and new rendering and lighting effects have added some new reflections to the game as seen in the 2.1. version Normandy preview in Mudspike forums. So we're getting there.

Very important, as mentioned.

Immersive, yes... the maps are very, very dead at the moment apart from civilian car traffic... problem is, both civilian cars and some animals in the fields would hit the framerate badly. As we know, DCS tends to drop frames at excessive amouts of objects and AI. So we would first need improvements on performance to give way to such fine touches. And obviously the cows are priority one... thousand.